Telling Stories

I Love America!!! But . . .

. . . I'm really getting fed up with our puritanical obsession about sexual matters.  I'm talking about Gov. Mark Sandford.  In my opinion, the only thing he did that's worth taking him to task over was leaving for Argentina without leaving someone in charge while he was out.  That's just plain stupid and irresponsible.

But what's making news - of course - is the affair.

This is why I have so much difficulty with the GOP.  Was he wrong to have an affair?  Was he wrong to cheat on his wife?  Was he wrong in trying to conceal it from everyone?

The answer is: who the heck knows?  If you are married or have been in any kind of serious relationship, you know that the only people who know what's going on in that relationship are the two persons involved in it.  They - and, unfortunately, the kids - will have to deal with this issue.  It's an intensely personal matter that does not belong in the public arena.  Period.

If you want him to quit because he flaked out, went to Argentina, and didn't leave anyone in charge, I'm OK with that.  Love may make you do stupid things, but if you're a governor, you can't afford to do dumb stuff like that for love, money, or anything else.

But if you just think it's immoral that he's running around having an affair and it offends your sensibilities, remember this:

"Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you."  Matthew 7.1-2

Conservatives Engage in CENSORSHIP (as Defined by a Fellow Conservative)

In response to my last post, a fellow blogger and I had the following exchange (relevant parts only):

El Loco:   I don't think the original comment was a personal attack, but rather, a bad joke. A really ill-conceived bad joke. But again, that stuff happens when you're a public persona.

Offensive? Yes. But lets move on to something a little more substantive, shall we? If the right is so bent out of shape, it can boycott Letterman's sponsors, and it can use the power of the remote to watch something else.

Oh, wait. I forgot you call that censorship and not free speech.

Conservative Blogger's Response: No Loco, we call it censorship if NOW (the group not the time) all of a sudden would ask for Letterman to be fired, the way they fired Imus.

He can say whatever he wants, and he can be boycotted, there are responsibilities for your actions.

Unless my fellow blogger suggests that it's only censorship when NOW does it, and I know she's too smart to suggest that, it appears that Conservatives are engaged in censorship.  Via The Raw Story:

In spite of Letterman's apology, conservatives have launched a Web site calling for his job. The site, FireDavidLetterman.com, appears to mimic the layout of The Drudge Report. The group responsible is planning to protest outside New York's Ed Sullivan Theater on Tuesday afternoon.

Emphasis added.  If you feel compelled to check out their site, by all means.  But it only goes to show that, for some people, freedom of speech only applies if you say stuff I don't find offensive.

The moral of the story?  There are way too many people with waaaaay too much time on their hands out there right now.

The Most Adequate Representation of New York State's Senate

 

I don't think we need to elaborate . . .

Jack Kemp, R.I.P.

It won't take anybody too long to figure out my political preferences by reading this blog.  That said, my disagreements with the Republicans are more on social conservatism than anything else.  When it comes to economics, I'm a pragmatist.  And if it works, then it's good no matter what it is.

There have been precious few Republicans who have made me think about crossing party lines in a positive way (and by that I mean voting for the Republican as opposed to voting against the Democrat). 

Jack Kemp was one of those Republicans.

We're all lucky to have had him around.  And now more than ever, Republicans need more guys like Jack Kemp.

Thank you, Jack.

I'll Let You Call it "Thinking Outside the Box" if You Let Me Call it "Weird"

As a disclaimer, I don't like Newt Gingrich.  Never had.  And probably never will.  Notwithstanding my ideological differences with him, he strikes me as a pompous, hypocritical ass.

That said, I still have some problems with these ideas on "health care:"

The first step in lowering health care costs and insuring all Americans is getting people to change their behavior, former U.S. House Speaker Newt Gingrich told state lawmakers Wednesday.

The Republican endorsed the carrot over the stick, saying he would pay pregnant teens to take prenatal vitamins and go to the doctor regularly so the government avoids astronomical bills when babies end up in neonatal intensive care units.

I really don't disagree with this.  How will this fit in the anti-abortion, anti-sex-ed Republican philosophy, I have no idea.

His other ideas include paying teens who don't get pregnant and stay in school;

First, this is really sexist.  Teenage girls don't get pregnant by themselves.  Hey, even with Mary the "hand of God" had to get involved there.  You can't prevent pregnancies by focusing solely on the females, not to mention that it places a burden and a responsibility on them that does not belong just to teenage girls.

Second, we're going to start paying kids to do what they're supposed to be doing in the first place?

Third, are we looking to reward the girls who have sex but don't get pregnant too?

requiring exercise for school children;

I know it's been a while since I was in school, but, when did this stop being mandatory?

giving tax breaks to grocery stores that open in the inner city;

They don't need tax breaks as much as they need security.

giving bonuses to food stamp recipients who buy fruits and vegetables;

Hmm.  I wonder if Newt has tried to feed a family fruits and vegetables on the amount of money they get on food stamps.  Nah.  I don't think he's even tried.  He's too fat.

and making students walk to school if they live close enough.

Uphill, both ways, in winter, during a snow storm too?  And what's his idea of "close enough"?  A block?  A mile?

Sure, the devil's in the details.  But you can't start out with something so obviously inadequate.

From the "Water is Wet, Ice is Cold, and the Sun Rises on the East" Department

Although I disagree with Ed Rollings on most things, he hits the nail right on the head when it comes to what ails the Republican party.

The battle to be the "de facto leader" of this party is akin to the question of who wants to steer the Titanic after it hit the iceberg. Who represents the party or its values is not relevant when only 26 percent of voters have a positive impression of the party at all and only 7 percent very positive, according to the latest Wall Street Journal/NBC News survey.

The Democratic Party is the reverse, with 49 percent positive. When 60 percent of the country approves of the job President Obama is doing, every Republican leader is going backward.

Republicans are not relevant. We just lost two back-to-back elections (2006 and 2008), and obviously, what we are selling, the voters aren't buying. In the midst of the most severe economic crisis in my lifetime, we have a president who is taking the country on a dramatic sea change. This is what he said he would do and he is doing it. And where are Republicans? Right now we don't have the alternative ideas, a message or, more important, the messenger.

Emphasis added.  That pretty much says it all.

Not that I'm shedding any tears or anything . . .

From the "Oh Please, Please, PLEEEEZEEEEEE" Folder

This would be just great:

An influential conservative political action committee is pledging to support primary challengers to any Republican senator who supports President Obama's stimulus package — the latest public show of dissatisfaction from the right over the massive measure before Congress.

"The American people don’t want this trillion dollar political payoff that will just line the pockets of non-governmental organizations who supported [President] Obama in the election,” said Scott Wheeler, the executive director of The National Republican Trust PAC, an organization that calls for less government spending and lower taxes.

“Republican senators are on notice," Wheeler said. "If they support the stimulus package, we will make sure every voter in their state knows how they tried to further bankrupt voters in an already bad economy.”

Go ahead.  Find some "mainstream Republicans" to run against the only three Republicans U.S. Senators that have managed to get themselves reelected in New England and the Northern Mid-Atlantic, the bluest region of the U.S.  Hopefully, the "mainstream Republicans" can beat them and then it would become an all-too-easy three seat pick-up (with the possible exception of Spencer in PA).

If news like this doesn't convince you of how out of touch Republicans are, nothing will.

Bipartisanship, Republican Style

Via the NYTimes:

Republicans plan to test President Barack Obama’s commitment to bipartisanship as his $825 billion stimulus package heads to the floor of the House of Representatives this week, with the House Republican leader saying Sunday morning that many in his party will vote no unless there are significant changes to the plan.

It seems that the Republican's definition of bipartisanship is "you yield until I feel comfortable."  But it gets better:

While the plan can potentially pass the Democratic-dominated House without Republican support, it will continue to face opposition when it comes before the Senate, said Senator John McCain of Arizona, speaking on “Fox News Sunday.” At least two Republicans will need to approve the bill for a filibuster-proof majority vote of 60.

Senator McCain, who lost the presidential election to Mr. Obama in November, said that he planned to vote no unless the bill were changed.

“We need to make tax cuts permanent, and we need to make a commitment that there’ll be no new taxes,” Mr. McCain said. “We need to cut payroll taxes. We need to cut business taxes.”

John McCain?  Oh, you mean this John McCain:

As Wall Street's roller-coaster week unfolded, John McCain's views on the economy went through about as many gyrations as the Dow Jones industrial average. Brace your neck for a quick recap.

Monday: Speaking at a rally in Jacksonville, McCain declares that "the fundamentals of our economy are strong." Coming as the Dow plunges more than 500 points and Lehman Bros. goes belly up, this makes McCain sound somewhat out of touch.

Tuesday: McCain explains that he meant to say American workers are fundamentally sound, and the economy itself is in "crisis." But, he adds, this crisis does not warrant bailing out insurance giant American International Group, which should be allowed to fail. McCain adviser Carly Fiorina, the former Hewlett-Packard CEO, unhelpfully opines that no one on either presidential ticket would be capable of running a company such as H-P.

Wednesday: After the government takes over AIG, McCain says the rescue was regrettable, but unavoidable.

Thursday: McCain, who over the years has described himself as a deregulator, recasts himself as a pro-regulation, anti-Wall Street populist. If he were president, he says, he'd fire Securities and Exchange Commission Chairman Christopher Cox, a former Republican congressman confirmed by unanimous consent of the Senate in 2005.

Granted, McCain, who has been running more on the strength of his foreign policy credentials than on his economic expertise, is entitled to change his mind as new facts emerge. And granted, Democrat Barack Obama also has scant experience dealing with financial crises. At this point, though, it looks as if cleaning up the economic mess will be the next president's top priority. The Republican candidate's erratic performance this week was far from reassuring.

Emphasis added.  I don't think Obama won the election on a promise to take advise from John McCain on economic matters.

Pathetic. Just Plain Pathetic.

This is what the McCain campaign has come down to:

UNITED NATIONS, October 20 (RIA Novosti) - Russia's permanent mission to the UN has received a letter from U.S. Republican presidential candidate John McCain asking for financial support of his election campaign, the mission said in a statement on Monday.

"We have received a letter from Senator John McCain with a request for a financial donation to his presidential election campaign. In this respect we have to reiterate that neither Russia's permanent mission to the UN nor the Russian government or its officials finance political activities in foreign countries," the statement said.

According to Ruslan Bakhtin, press secretary of the Russian mission, the letter dated September 29 and signed by McCain, was addressed to Vitaly Churkin, Russia's envoy to the UN, and arrived on October 16.

Enclosed was a request for a donation of up to $5,000 to McCain's election campaign to be returned with a check or permission to withdraw the money from the donor's credit card until October 24.

Emphasis added.  I really hope this is some kind of hoax, or an "error" on the part of the McCain campaign.  Otherwise, this man, who recently railed against Russia's intervention in Georgia, is the type that will stop at nothing to get elected.

That kind of President we don't need.

Luck - or Lack of it

At a different time and place, I might be tempted to feel bad for McCain.  After all, if he didn't have bad luck, he'd have no luck at all.

You see, he's been working so hard for so long to secure his conservative base.  He even got himself a life-sized version of "Talkie Sarah" to appeal to the base (ironically, Al-Qaeda translates to "the base" as well, so you draw your own conclusions).

"My name is Talkie Sarah and I eat moose burgers."

"My name is Talkie Sarah and I see Russia from my living room."

"My name is Talkie Sarah and I'm a maverick reformer!"

"My name is Talkie Sarah and I don't like taxes."

So here he is, very well received by the base - or maybe I should say "the Republican base" since I don't want to offend Al-Qaeda - and then he goes off to propose an additional massive bailout $300 billion more.  And this is what he gets for it:

John McCain is facing a fresh round of anger from members of his own party deeply opposed to the Arizona senator's proposal for the federal government to purchase troubled mortgage loans.

The pointed backlash from several economic conservatives -- many of whom already distrust McCain's commitment to free-market principles -- couldn't come at a worse time for the Republican presidential nominee less than four weeks before Election Day as he stares at a significant deficit in national and state polls.

But at a time when McCain can't afford to worry about a lack of support from his party's base, several conservatives are openly criticizing the plan as a flagrant reward for reckless behavior among lenders.

In a sharply worded editorial on its Web site Thursday, the editors of The National Review -- an influential bastion of conservative thought -- derided the plan as "creating a level of moral hazard that is unacceptable" and called it a "gift to lenders who abandoned any sense of prudence during the boom year. . . ."

But McCain is hoping the plan will resonate with moderate and undecided voters, many of whom viewed the bailout as a giveaway to Wall Street CEOs. This plan, the McCain campaign argues, better steers the money to Main Street, where struggling homeowners need immediate relief.

Emphasis added.  He can't win without the Republican base and he can't win without moderates and undecided.  And he can't figure out a was to net both before November 4.

Like I said, if he didn't have bad  luck, he'd have no luck at all.